New stadium in LA

[Faded blues]

The Chargers are doing everything to fast track the Carson Stadium including spending more dollars:


Costs of fast-tracking NFL stadium plans in Carson

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la...506-story.html

LOL

20 million is shit.

stan has spent 300 mil.

Dude r u fabiani?

[Den60]

Much in the same way that PHX built their stadium.....hotel and rental car taxes. For the life of me I can't figure out why this can not be done, even if it needed to pass a vote. Locals, for the most part aren't paying it. It has proven not to be a detriment to those planning to travel. I mean, NOBODY even looks at the added taxes to their hotel or rental car charge, and it is such a small amount per individual (but adds up quickly in the aggregate). The hoteliers said no....so what???? grab a set and make it happen. it will be a shame if a small cartel of hoteliers ends up displaying enough clout to where they have a big part in forcing the team to move. IF SD ever got to vote on this type of tax, and it didn't pass the city deserves to lose the team IMO.

Because in California such tax increases require a public vote with a 2/3rds majority for passing. Arizona doesn't have that requirement. If it was a simple majority vote or even a 55% vote then you have a chance of getting it passed. At 2/3rds there is no chance in hell and I don't care what the issue is.

Also, the hoteliers didn't say "no." They tried to fund the convention center expansion by levying a tax on themselves without voter approval. That was struck down by the California Supreme Court. What they have said is that they don't want the stadium to be part of the convention center expansion.

[Den60]

My reading comprehension sucks den

I do not know the amount of reserves the county has set aside

They stated a billion

Yes, they have about $1B in liquid assets. They also have roads that need repair and other infrastructure issues. They aren't going to hand over the money just to make the Chargers happy. If they do offer to contribute more money then they will require a mechanism to not only recapture their investment but to create a return on their investment as well. Even this, I would think, would require voter approval though without the 2/3rds requirement to do so. Still the issue is, who is going to pay the county back? That would have to be the Chargers I would think. There might be the possibility that they could tie their loan into the redevelopment portion of the Q site but since it will be low density I don't think the money will be enough to repay the county.

[Den60]

LOL

20 million is shit.

stan has spent 300 mil.

Dude r u fabiani?

And they have only spent $13-14M for their "plans" to stay in San Diego.

[Boltaction]

The Chargers have Goldman Sachs financing the Carson Stadium. That dominates!

Fabiani is answering all of your doubts below: This article is current only three hours old. The Chargers are never going to say anything detrimental about San Diego, they love SD. They wish they could build in SD, but they can get what they want in Carson and are moving forward. They will tell all their fans from SD and every other city they love them and hope they will come see their new stadium in Carson, all will be invited to come and enjoy the new Stadium. Believe me they will never say anything bad about San Diego fans or San Diego. Nothing but complements. But they are leaving because they can build the Stadium of their dreams just a few miles north, in Carson.

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html

In stadium financing game, Goldman Sachs dominates

When San Diego Chargers executives needed help raising $1.7 billion for a football stadium in Carson, they turned to the professionals: Goldman Sachs.

The giant investment bank has become a major player in the high-stakes stadium financing game, crafting 30 deals with pro teams in the last decade.

Goldman has seized an opportunity in an era when cities and states are increasingly leery of subsidizing sports palaces for billionaires. The firm offers the next-best thing: upfront Wall Street money, along with help crafting creative deals that maximize a team's profits and minimize its taxes.

Along the way, the bank and the investors it recruits pull in seven-figure returns and can even influence where franchises end up playing.

The firm has financed some of the biggest deals in sports, including the new Yankee Stadium in New York and the San Francisco 49ers' new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. Now Goldman is at the center of the Chargers and Oakland Raiders plan for a new stadium in Carson, where it has crafted a complex public-private partnership to build the nation's most expensive stadium.

The stadium plan still needs approval from the NFL, and the league could choose to go with a competing plan for a $1.86-billion stadium in Inglewood from St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the league's second-richest owner.

But Goldman's money and influence give confidence to the Carson plan's boosters.

"Inglewood likes to say they have the money, because they have Kroenke and he's worth $6.3 billion," said Carson Mayor Albert Robles. "Actually, we have more money — because we have Goldman Sachs."

The Chargers first hired Goldman several years ago to advise them on a new stadium in San Diego. But talks with the city stalled amid disagreements over sites and public financing. When the team then looked to Los Angeles, Goldman had a ready blueprint in the $1.3-billion deal to build Levi's Stadium.

It is the first NFL stadium built in California since the mid-1960s, financed in a city about the same size as Carson with little upfront tax money and big potential profits for the team.

"It showed that, in a big market, you can do this," said Mark Fabiani, who's in charge of stadium efforts for the Chargers. "That definitely affected our thinking."

The Chargers drove the stadium planning before inviting the Raiders to join earlier this year.

In Santa Clara, and in Carson, Goldman's plan was to create a public authority to build and own the stadium, using the proceeds of a construction loan raised from private investors. The loan would be paid back using revenue from sponsorships, high-end seating and non-NFL events at the stadium and, in a two-team stadium in Carson, using as much as $800 million in personal seat licenses — upfront payments that allow fans to buy season tickets.

The structure of the deal would also save both teams a lot of money in the long run, said John Vrooman, a sports economist at Vanderbilt University.

Using a tax-exempt public authority to sell personal seat licenses and sponsorships allows the teams to avoid many taxes on those sales, saving them tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars, Vrooman said. The teams would also avoid property taxes on the building, though they would pay rent and other local taxes on the private use of a public facility.

Public agency bonds for the stadium would be tax exempt and sell at lower interest rates.

"Goldman Sachs' job is to use, if not disguise, every public funding tax shelter and loophole," Vrooman said.

Goldman's investors also prefer the opportunities for private profits in L.A., which San Diego can't match. That makes the Carson stadium a much safer bet. Building something similar in San Diego without generous public subsidies would require the Chargers to borrow more money at higher interest rates. The economics don't work, Fabiani said.

"In L.A., the naming rights are worth more. Suite sales are worth more. Sponsorships are worth more," he said. "In San Diego we just don't have those advantages. Even though we'd like to do the same thing in San Diego, we couldn't finance it."

Goldman declined to make members of its stadium financing team available for interviews. But at a recent Carson City Council meeting, Tim Romer, who heads the firm's West Coast public-sector financing operation, said he's confident that this plan can succeed in the L.A. market.

"We're committed to making this happen," he said. "We've concluded the financing is viable."

Some have their doubts. Tony Manolatos, a spokesman for San Diego's stadium task force, says Goldman's plan in Carson leans too heavily on personal seat licenses. To raise $800 million, the Chargers and Raiders both would have to sell more seat licenses than anyone except the Dallas Cowboys and 49ers ever have — in a market where neither team has deep roots — while competing with each other.

"No one has ever sold that amount of [personal seat licenses] in a new market," he said.

San Diego officials last week countered with an offer that includes $242 million in city and county subsidies, $173 million in construction bonds and $225 million from the sale of city-owned land near the stadium. The Chargers would put up $300 million and the NFL would pay $200 million. Team officials say they're reviewing the proposal.

If Goldman is right, their investors should see a solid return. The Santa Clara deal generated about $75 million in interest and fees, according to financing documents, with more potentially to come when construction bonds are refinanced later this year. In Carson — where the stadium would cost $400 million more — financiers could easily recoup $100 million.

"They're basically the middlemen," said Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who watched the Santa Clara stadium deal unfold.

Goldman should have no trouble raising money, said Randy Gerardes, a senior municipal bond analyst at Wells Fargo Securities.

"A market like L.A. is attractive," Gerardes said. "Just like it's attractive to the NFL, it's attractive to investors. There's a lot of money there, a big corporate base."

[Faded blues]

Den

It's 10 mil the raiders paid the other ten.

To me either they are a bitch to kroenke or stay

[bonehead]

Goldman's investors also prefer the opportunities for private profits in L.A., which San Diego can't match. That makes the Carson stadium a much safer bet. Building something similar in San Diego without generous public subsidies would require the Chargers to borrow more money at higher interest rates. The economics don't work, Fabiani said.


Goldman's investors are gonna love the oncoming lawsuits associated with building a facility on that carsonogenic cesspool

[Den60]

Den

It's 10 mil the raiders paid the other ten.

To me either they are a bitch to kroenke or stay

I have always said I think the stadium will be built in Inglewood. I have also said I think Kroenke will be pressured by the NFL to accept a second tenant. Other owners have said that should two teams move to LA it should be "simultaneous."

I am not sure how much the Chargers have spent in the last year on their plans for moving to Carson but it seems to be pretty damned close to what they spent over the last 13 or 14 years to stay in San Diego. So if you consider that you have to think that their priorities have changed.

[TTK]

I will follow the actions of the Chargers as to what they intend to do. So far Twenty million dollars on just the land over half million spent on Architects and hiring Carmen Policy for probably several million dollars to help with moving the team to Carson, I believe they are moving if they get the vote from the league and all their actions say so. It's not a bluff guys it's a fact of life.

You can look at it like that or you can look at it as the Chargers using Carson for leverage.

Inglewood is reportedly going to be shovel ready in December. Carson won't be until next year. (They're saying 12 months of work to finish getting the contaminated land ready and it hasn't started yet). Unless something happens in Inglewood to delay it considerably, there's no way for the Chargers to beat Kroenke to LA.

If the Chargers really wanted to go to LA, why didn't they do this 3-4 years ago and beat Kroenke to the punch? Why did they wait for Kroenke to make the first move? This is all in reaction to Kroenke's actions and Fabiani even admitted that. That reeks of a total leverage play.

[KNSD]

If the Chargers want to get ripped off by Goldman Sachs, then so be it.

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

You can look at it like that or you can look at it as the Chargers using Carson for leverage.

Inglewood is reportedly going to be shovel ready in December. Carson won't be until next year. (They're saying 12 months of work to finish getting the contaminated land ready and it hasn't started yet). Unless something happens in Inglewood to delay it considerably, there's no way for the Chargers to beat Kroenke to LA.

If the Chargers really wanted to go to LA, why didn't they do this 3-4 years ago and beat Kroenke to the punch? Why did they wait for Kroenke to make the first move? This is all in reaction to Kroenke's actions and Fabiani even admitted that. That reeks of a total leverage play.

If they cannot workout a deal in San Diego now, they will have no market here anyway. When it is clear they have to leave to get a new stadium who will support the product on the field?

[TTK]

If they cannot workout a deal in San Diego now, they will have no market here anyway. When it is clear they have to leave to get a new stadium who will support the product on the field?

That's why Fabiani's tactics don't make a lot of sense to me. I understand they want leverage for a better deal but he's taking it too far in my opinion. They need to win the PR battle in this for when the vote comes.

I think they could take the CSAG proposal as it is and still come out well but the NFL's greed is making them do all this.